Published on 6 April 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 7626/18 GERTA HAUSER GMBH & CO KG against Austria lodged on 31 January 2018 communicated on 15 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 30 June 2017, the applicant company, which carries out painting works, filed an application with the Constitutional Court, requesting it to review the constitutionality of the Act on Distance and Off-Premises Contracts ( Fern- und Auswärtsgeschäfte-Gesetz ; hereinafter, “FAGG”) implementing the EU Consumer Rights Directive, 2011/83/EU, and to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the question of its compatibility with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

On 27 November 2017 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant company ’ s request. It gave a brief reasoning why the conditions for requesting the CJEU to give a preliminary ruling were not met and referred to one of its recent decision issued on 12 October 2017 (case no. G 52/2016).

The applicant company complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision not to refer the case for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the refusal of the Constitutional Court to grant the applicant company ’ s request for a referral to the CJEU render the proceedings unfair, in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Harisch v. Germany , no. 50053/16, §§ 33-36, 11 April 2019)?

2. In particular, did the Constitutional Court ’ s reasoning of its decision of 27 November 2017 in itself, or in conjunction with the reasoning referred to of its decision of 12 October 2017, suffice to comply with the obligation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to indicate the reasons why the question for referral is irrelevant, that the European Union law provision in question has already been interpreted by the CJEU, or that the correct application of European Union law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt (see Harisch v. Germany , cited above, § 36)?